17 June 2013 11:35 AM

British leaders are dangerously naive about Putin's Russia

Senior British politicians are hugely naïve about Russia and
Vladimir Putin in particular.

A month ago the Prime Minister flew to Sochi, Putin’s summer
retreat and hailed ‘real progress’ with the Russian President.

In the wake of that meeting, Whitehall briefers breathlessly
described how Mr Putin had put aside his official briefing papers and spoken to
the Prime Minister mano-a-mano.

No matter that this is the oldest diplomatic trick in the
book, (‘Screw this official nonsense,
it’s just you and me Dave…’) senior persons in the British government
appeared to fall for it and proclaim their confidence that some business might
be done at the G8 summit to shift the Russian position on Syria.

Yesterday, Putin got the return trip to Downing Street and told
Mr Cameron he is about to hand weapons to human cannibals who dine on the hearts of their enemies, what one enterprising sub editor headlined a ‘Cannibal
Lecture’.

It was the most uncomfortable press conference since Tony
Blair stood next to Bashar al-Assad and was forced to listen to him defending
the funding of terrorists.

The rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s desire to help
the Syrian rebels will be much discussed over the next 48 hours. As I have
revealed before, half the Cabinet appears to oppose him and the whips have
warned that he cannot win a vote in the Commons. That is not my subject here.

Throughout this Syrian civil war, which has now claimed
around 100,000 lives, British politicians and diplomats have repeatedly
appeared overoptimistic about the prospects of getting Russia to assist the
path to peace.

The Foreign Office is brilliant at reading the nuances of
public statements from foreigners. When Russia talks tough, expressions of
regret are made. When warmer noises or hints of compromise are proffered, they
are spotted and seized on like a starving man licking the insides of a
discarded McDonald’s box.

Hopes are expressed, cautious optimism is unleashed. Russian
leaders, we were told, no longer thought Assad must stay (though they have done
nothing to usher him out). Russia might support regime change, we were assured
(if another, as yet unidentified Alawite hardman can be found). And all for
nought.

Russia is unbending. It is redoubling its efforts to arm
Assad. Its spies are rampant in Britain, happy to openly murder dissidents on
the streets of London.

Russia is not a country and Mr Putin is not a man that deals
in nuance, they deal in cold hard power and a belief that their national
interests are not just different from our own but, in many regards, wholly antithetical
to them.

I recently had lunch with a European diplomat and asked what
his country makes of Russia. He delivered a brutal assessment of British
optimism and spelt out the following:

-
While Western nations think in terms of values
and themes, Russia still thinks in terms of power and prestige.

-
Russia still believes in spheres of influence,
the kind of diplomatic concept last indulged in by British politicians at the
Yalta summit in 1945 and abandoned by the West after the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991. That means it will not countenance Western dabbling in Syria, a
country it regards as within its sphere.

-
Russia believes its interests in the Middle East
are not compatible with those of the West. They believe in a ‘zero sum game’
where that which makes us stronger makes them weaker. Russia wants warm water
ports in Syria, it does not want Western troops in that country.

-
Russia believes in the long game. Its leaders
believe they are engaged in a game (of thrones, if you like) for world power
when Western leaders packed up and went home in 1991.

-
Russia hasn’t changed. You lot don’t get it…

Britain is not alone in its delusions. President Barack
Obama’s reluctance to engage with foreign policy crises comes because he hopes
to stay out of situations that might embroil his country in difficult regions
of the world. Russia sees its interests threatened in these regions, America
increasingly does not.

The silliest response to Russian power came 12 years ago
when President George W. Bush met Putin and announced: ‘I looked the man in the
eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very
good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.’

There is much talk about Western nations gearing up to arm
the Syrian rebels as if this could be the decisive moment of the conflict. In
fact, the decisive moment has already taken place. It came when Vladimir Putin decided
he would support the Assad regime and keep on supporting them.

That doesn’t mean nothing can be done. We could train the rebels,
even arm the rebels. This might in due course force Assad to the negotiating
table.

But it must be understood that if we do so, we are not just
fighting the bloody regime in Damacus, but its unwavering backers in Moscow.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.

CHAPMAN & CO

The Chapman & Co blog takes you behind the scenes of the Westminster village with Fleet Street's finest political reporting team. Check here for the latest news, analysis, gossip and scandal from the Daily Mail's Political Editor James Chapman, Deputy Political Editor Tim Shipman, Political Correspondents Jason Groves, Kirsty Walker and Gerri Peev and Whitehall Correspondent Daniel Martin.